So I had held off posting this hoping CS would actually do something after I put a ticket in on this issue almost a month ago when the last season ended assuming it would get fixed quick and that an added post to an issue that would quickly be sorted would be of little help. However after several weeks of silence the ticket got closed with links to forum topics concerning Guilds... -not even remotely what my ticket/bug report was about... So I have put in another ticket and it's still open after around a week it seems. Now a whole new season of PVP has started without any resolution or acknowledgment of this issue with rewards from the last season (or looked at by someone that can understand english I am assuming considering the original response I got from CS)... I am doubtful I am the only one that ran into this bug, but considering the lack of interest the SWTOR team seems to have in it as a single ticket I thought I would at least post here in case others are also having this issue (and to warn people who might try grinding pvp season 2 rewards so they don't end up in the same place). So the problem: I started about half way through, but had ground out enough matches to make it to lvl 20 on PVP season 1. I had not claimed any of the rewards (aside from a couple decorations) immediately. I had (mistakenly) assumed there would either be (a) a countdown in game for the end of pvp season 1 like there was for the galactic seasons and/or (b) that when the pvp season ended any unclaimed rewards would get mailed to the first toon that I logged into as happens with Galactic Seasons. Both of those assumptions were wrong. And so when pvp season 1 ended I could no longer access the rewards track to claim my prizes. While all my unclaimed Galactic Seasons items did get mailed to the first toon I logged into the day after the seasons ended, the PVP seasons items DID NOT show up. So I was left having wasted hours and hours of grinding out a handful of pvp tokens (I wouldn't even be able to use for much for at least another season or two) wasted as well as no way to get the complete armor set I had unlocked (or the couple of pieces of the higher tier set that were unlocked) at the level I made it to by the end of the season. I have had inconsistent interactions with CS before, but I don't think I've ever put in a ticket that took over 3 weeks to just get closed without even being read (based on the completely irrelevant 'answer' to the ticket). Due to this I certainly won't be queuing for PVP in season 2 (not a big loss since I recognize that I'm mediocre at pvp that isn't Galactic Starfighter), but since it seems they need fodder for their queues it might still be relevant if a lot like me realize it's not worth the time/effort. For those that are playing season 2 of PVP I would highly recommend claiming each level's rewards AS SOON as you unlock it so that you (hopefully) don't encounter a similar problem when the season does end. And for those that also have had issues with this sort of bug, it's not just you and feel free to chime in in case the people that watch the boards have a more direct line to those that can fix issues like this than their CS team seems to now.

Yeah the Rishi datacron still leaves a bad taste in my mouth... Add to all your complaints that (at least years ago when my spouse and I tried 2-manning it to take *some* of the tedium out of the grinding grophets) it apparently had a bug that kept grouped players from both getting the credit for the datacron. After all those terrible hours of grinding pigs, nothing (basically she got credit for the datacron like normal, but because I clicked it second I got diddly-squat)... Put in a ticket to CS about it right after it happened and their reply? 'yeah it's a known bug. Don't worry you can complete it again and it will give the credit if you aren't grouped that time' ...*insert choice expletive here* ...Well that response was the nail in the coffin for me to unsub for some time and it still bothers me to this day... it's been YEARS and I will NEVER try that quest again (and for that matter I refuse to try any new pita datacrons or similar that come out) because I'm not about to waste hours just to find a bug and be told "yeah waste that much time again and maybe it'll work like promised then. feeling lucky? Have fun!" yet again... I liked Rishi ok up until that point. Now I hope the emperor shoves it right into the nearest sun.

I suppose I will play target for those medal seeking pubs by flying my Decimus imp side (all of my future murderers can thank me later). I will do my best to be an annoying kill at least Should be interesting. I won't be able to fly the whole day obviously, due to work, but I'll see you all up there for however long I can in the evening! (and thanks for putting the events on Rose)

It was a fun event Eudoxia. I do wish I'd gotten to face you more than 3 matches (for that matter it would have been fun to have been on your team trying to peel for you for more than the 1 match I was haha) but nothing that could be done about that of course, it's just the luck of the draw. Saw some pretty awesome peels during the event too (for my part, I'd like to give a shout out in particular to some great flying by Tr'ench and Zuckerkorn in the matches I was in against them for their extremely zealous peels to keep Eudoxia alive longer. -It was a pleasure to get my teeth kicked in by you guys ). It was great to fly with (and against) all the pilots that came out. Thanks again for putting the event on Eudoxia, and I do hope you had a great birthday!

I've been meaning to post to this thread since I first read it weeks ago and somehow here it is the night before and I'm just getting around to it. Anyway, I am definitely planning to attend. Sounds like it should be an interesting and fun night. I'll be on Skye'Charrin (or, if I decide to level some near-stock toons, I may switch to Krodger-Fankelj imp side, or Cajoba'Varn pub side at some point). I'll see you all in the skies tomorrow!

I believe I will be able to make it (I will certainly try). I will be on Skye-Charrin on imp side (though the most serious thing I have unlocked on her ships is a base level hyperbeacon lol). If the matches seem lop sided I may try recreating my pub flier over here as well (Zrarrath'Oniqui) and fly that side for a bit. Thanks for putting this event on Maulkat. I look forward to seeing everyone up there.

Maybe that is not how you interpreted what I said, But I assure you it *is* what I said. Note the use of the "/" rather than a comma between the words drone and mine... If you think it would be less confusing to everyone though I will happily go back and edit that post to read "Drones/Mines" instead. I should have clarified that in the use of this tactic it would be imperative to be flanking the opponent(s). Charging straight down a gunships' sights is of course a particularly bad idea in a S2E setup. I'm not sure if this was directed at me since I've made no such claims . I visit Ebon Hawk so rarely I surely couldn't tell you who was best at what there to be quite honest and only suggested S2E as an alternative component option. ...Siraka, I could be completely misinterpreting the tone of some of your replies to me (it is easy to do when conversing in text-based format after all), but I'm starting to get the feeling I have offended you in some way. If that is the case please let me know because that has never been my intention.

That is exactly what I was saying actually. (bolded for emphasis) I'm thinking this difference of opinion might have more to do with difference between flying styles than anything. I believe the S2E build relies almost completely on not giving the gunship a chance to get that near-centered shot (of course that is impossible to achieve all the time, but by making quick (and erratic) runs at a target and then immediately fading/LoSing before the gunship can center another shot the pilot can limit the number of clean shots the gunship can actually take). Meanwhile the DF option is entirely superior if you plan to stick around within range of any foes for any amount of time, if you want to have more time to line up your shot and/or if there are multiple gunships triangulating their fire toward you when you make the run. To be fair I run DF myself for the reasons mentioned in my first post so I am not going to claim that S2E is inherently better since I've got much less time in the cockpit using it than those that run it as their primary build, and I find DF works better for me as well, however during the time I have run with S2E I've found it to be useful enough to believe it worth mentioning as an option for TDM if it happens to fit a player's style better. You are correct and I apologize if I was being pedantic. I simply wanted to clarify for new pilots so they wouldn't misunderstand to think they could pop DF and stop running for that 6 seconds while all the BLC shots flew past them harmlessly (since if the BLC scout got close enough they'd start landing). I think calling it a more advanced component is more like calling Directional shields, rather than fortress, a more advanced component: namely similarly to Directionals it requires much more attention and understanding of how to manage its use to gain the most benefit (and minimize the largest detrimental qualities it has). I never intended "more advanced" to mean "more powerful/better" and perhaps I should have chosen different words to express what I meant. Personally I think DF is (for the typical pilot) a better choice. I do however believe S2E is a component that *can* be very potent in the right hands. In either case though it is a component that requires quite a lot more care in managing when and how to use it to it's fullest potential and thus is not as easy to simply pick up and excel at the first time out as would be the average component that works similarly to the next one (ie overcharged shields, charged plating, and quick charge shields all to some varying degree require you to simply push "2" when you need a shield boost and forget the component the rest of the time (yes optimized use of these examples is a lot more involved than "mash 2 for shieldz" , but overall they do not require as much of a re-think of when to and when not to activate the shield component as S2E and they don't tend to require as much constant awareness/attention from the learning pilot as something like Directionals or S2E. After all, if you just mashed S2E every time it was off cooldown you're basically flying without shields, and if you never used it then obviously why equip it -learning the proper situations to use it in is where it is different and why I called it more advanced).

I would argue that Nemarus was correct about ignoring bombers: Remember the context he was speaking about was flying a Novadive in TDM. In such a situation the only consistent way an equally skilled bomber can really kill a scout is if the scout goes into the area that the bomber is denying –at which point the bomber can very easily kill the scout. Nemarus was explaining the tactics used to hunt in TDM that focused on high mobility and taking out high priority targets (gunships) or targets of opportunity. Typically a well flown bomber will not be sticking his neck out of cover enough to be a target of opportunity since the scout risks serious punishment by encroaching on a minefield. Usually the LC+Pods Novadive would take out drones/mines between him and the high priority targets (gunships), hit the selected target, then bug out in order to rinse and repeat said tactic. Diving on a bomber that has any reasonable amount of cover whether from his own deployables or from allies is a disadvantageous situation for the scout and would only be advisable if the scout had changed the rules of the engagement (ie is packing a DO). Of course, as you said the best tactic is to change to using a gunship if the foe starts stacking bombers since scouts can’t do much against them very easily. However, the OP’s question was specifically how to go about dealing with a bomber when flying a Novadive in Domination. The answers people have given in this thread have tried to explain the best approaches to dealing with a bomber if you are in a novadive and can’t/don’t want to suicide just to bring a gunship back. I think (not wanting to speak for Nemarus) Nem was just trying to expand on tactics for Novadives to use against bombers in a TDM setting: Namely, avoiding them for the most part just like how you would (typically) try to avoid engaging an equally skilled gunship if you were flying a bomber since in each of these match ups, with an equal playing field, no powerups and equally skilled pilots, it’s a losing proposition. Yeah he suggests a build that typically wants to ignore 1/3 of the meta ships, but that is simply advising to play to your ships’ strengths instead of looking to find situations to put it into that bring all of its weaknesses to bear. How would the norm of suggesting a bomber build that would likewise ignore an entire archetype in the meta be any different?–and as far as I know there are no particularly successful gunship hunting bomber builds. I'm inclined to believe that he was speaking more of a pursuing scout/strike rather than a pursuing gunship like you suggest … I think many good scouts learn to not pay much heed to who a gunship is targeting but instead to pay attention to which direction they are facing. If the gunship is still facing you, then of course it makes no sense to turn right back into him unless you like eating slugs to the face; After all, if you did just fall off his sensors you will no doubt show right back up as soon as you start moving back toward him so if he's been charging a rail exactly what you said could happen would. On the other hand, a scout that is pursuing you will (usually) be keeping you targeted since it’s easier to anticipate which way they need to turn to close the gap with the lead indicator showing. In such a situation once the pursuer goes from targeting you to targeting nothing it’s not such a bad thought to reposition to engage the pursuer since you will now be engaging them on your own terms and not on his, presumably giving you the advantage if you anticipated the situation correctly. In this case I think such advice, while not an absolute, is a fairly useful rule of thumb to go by. Am I very wrong? I was thinking Railgun drones (as well as Mines and I *think* all the other armed drones’ lasers) do not respect evasion so it wouldn’t matter if you have 0% evasion or 1740% evasion; if the railgun drone targets you then you *will* get hit. (Drak or someone else that’s tested it more recently than me please correct me if I am indeed wrong here). Not saying that the defensive benefits of Distortion Field in the other areas are insignificant, but (assuming I am remembering right that Rail drones ignore evasion) against railgun drones the S2E build is only weaker if you take the hit with your shields down but on the other hand, the extra speed and engine power can help you get into firing range to destroy the drone or out of the drone’s own range slightly faster so I’m not sure it is definitively worse than DF in this one aspect (dependent on the pilot’s style). …Also, as an aside I would say from my own experience DF is by no means an “immunity” to a BLC sporting scout. It certainly helps especially if the scout chasing you is firing from the very maximum range, but it by no means makes you entirely invulnerable to them. That said, I don't disagree with your point that DF would tend to be the more 'friendly' component for a newer pilot to use since it gives more room for error (and it honestly doesn't feel as funky to use the first few times you take it out like S2E does). Though since scouts tend to take longer than the other 2 archetypes to get a basic feel for anyway, it might not be an insurmountable obstacle to also spend that time learning to use the more advanced shield component as well.

I will certainly do my best to be there. You guys have been hosting some interesting events and it's great to have these chances to get the whole community together in one place every so often.. I'm excited to partake in this one. In case y'all are looking for suggestions though I would humbly suggest that more of these events be made that are also imp-friendly -especially considering the republic lean of the GSF que on Shadowlands. I'll be flying Zrarrath-Oniqui and possibly Adoria pub side. I may switch to imp side on Vera or Althandra for a few games too (despite being billed as a pub specific event, I figure why not fly strikes when I'm queing as an imp during the event too?) I'll look forward to seeing you all there!

I’d just like to point out that for those pilots that don’t want to shell out $15-$20 per ship, per toon, just to be able to have both a dogfighting scout and a gunship hunter on their bar, the Novadive would seem to me to be a very viable option; Equipping the flashfire with BLC+Clusters and relegating the novadive to a LC+Pods hunter build. ...Alternatively, I suppose they could just be like me and be too stubborn to want to turn in the keys on their Novadive despite being able to get a little more bang-for-their-buck from it's angry cousin. In that case they might just want to figure out how to best utilize what they have in the lovable Novadive. To get to the original questions, I would reiterate what Ramalina pointed out to take out turrets; pods with the first upgrade (ignore armor) are your best asset for this and typically Laser Cannons mesh very well with pods. -Certainly avoid the sadly underperforming Rapid Fire Lasers whichever weapon you choose. Like Archonitek said, when it comes to bombers, as a rule you *always* want to get the bomber before it gets near the sat. Out in the open you can do some serious damage to the bombers as long as you don’t let yourself eat their mines; once they get under cover though they become a lot harder to dislodge particularly in a Novadive. If a bomber has gotten to a sat you are fighting for, as a rule it is a *very* bad idea to circle with them in a Novadive (that is playing their game -and bombers are natural counters to scouts- so the only real way to win their game is not to play). Instead attack from above or below (depending on where they are at) Like Archonitek said. Bombers of average skill or less will often just sit there or keep circling the same side of the sat and if they do that you can take shots at them starting from 5-6k out and eventually kill them (and pods are again an asset when facing bombers, Laser Cannons are better than the other two against bombers as well since they have more range to keep you away from the mines). If the bomber is very good he will most likely try to LoS you by flying to the opposite side of the sat (in this case it would help a lot to have a buddy there to finish him once you chase him to the other side), in the event he does flip sides don’t give into the temptation to close the gap and circle with him on the flip side (once again circling the same sat as a bomber is playing his game –you don’t want to play anyone else’s game but your own in a Novadive) Instead use your speed and endurance to boost a bit past the sat (steering clear of mines) and once on the side he has moved to repeat the process of engaging him starting at that 5-6k range from above/below him. Again to reiterate what was said before, the Novadive (especially the LC+Pod) is best at hit-and-run tactics and it performs fairly poorly in drawn out turning fights. S2E is great in TDM but in my experience I have found the lack of an additional missile break is much more noticeable in Dom where you will need to spend most of your time within 20k or less of a given satellite condensing the missile lock opportunities the other team has on you. If you use Powerdive it may not matter much, but if you want to use a different engine component it's possible that you may find the lack of additional missile break to hurt you more than it helps. I know I’m a fairly unorthodox Novadive pilot, but I would humbly offer that Booster Recharge is not a bad component to consider for domination matches (it’s my system of choice –I consider engine power to be my most valuable resource and if I’m flying a scout I tend to be leaning on the spacebar anytime I’m not shooting –and sometimes even then). You lose a fair amount of burst offense by not using Targeting Telemetry but you gain a lot of mobility in the event you need to rapidly get from A to C to counter a threat, etc. In addition, the instant boost T5 evo for booster recharge (the one that gives you an instant 20% of your engine power back) means that even if a gunship surprises you while you’re sitting on a sat and tags you with an AoE Ion rail you can simply put the throttle to the wall, sprint out and engage the gunship, popping your booster recharge once your engine pool gets near the empty mark. Basically, Booster recharge gives you a lot of mobility without costing you a missile break while also providing insurance against Ion Spam that tends to be prevalent near sats in Dom matches, The price for this however is a lot less burst on offense. For my flying style I find it's worth the price, most don't though which is why so few experienced scout pilots use it so your mileage may vary. Speaking of burst, to play devil’s advocate against my own suggestion, Targeting Telemetry adds a *lot* of burst offensive potential which is why it is the usual choice. The best thing about TT in relation to your questions is that it makes killing those pesky bombers a bit easier (and the quicker bombers are gone the better for a scout), but it does mean (somewhat) limiting your ability to get from one satellite to another rapidly if you decide you don’t want to run S2E with it. At the end of the day, on a Novadive, S2E+TT is probably the best option in TDM, and Disto.Field+ TT is probably best in Dom (though usually a BLC+Cluster Flashfire is more effective here if you aren't in love with the Novadive). That said, I find Booster Recharge to be a fairly good compromise that works nearly as effectively (for me at least) in both situations *assuming* you aren’t willing/able to simply add a second scout with an alternate build to your bar so you can have one build best suited for each. I hope this helps.

I really enjoyed the last 2 stock nights on Pot5 I participated in so I will do my best to attend this one on the 17th at least for an hour or so (hopefully longer). I've actually been meaning to start a GSF alt on Harb for a while now so I may kill 2 birds with one stone and fly with Skye-Charrin or Skye'Charrin since they will still be stock anyway and it will give me a head start on earning fleet req on them. I've also created 2 stock-night only toons for future events (and if I get enough games in to clear Skye's bonus req for the day I'll probably switch to one of those for this event as well). The Stock-night toons I'll have sitting on Harb will be ImpStocksBack (imp) and LockStockAndBR (Pub). Apologies if my planning to use non-stock names for at least some for the event will be confusing (no matter which of those tags I'm flying under, I'll be flying stock). I look forward to seeing you all there!

I think you missed the patch note that explained this so-called 'bug'. Here it is if you're curious: I hope this helps clear up any confusion over this new "feature".

Yeah I totally agree that BLC with my proposed changes would be a *terrible* idea and specifically mentioned (or at least intended to) that BLC and my range increase suggestion should never be combined for exactly the reasons you point out. I agree with you about the proposals Nemarus has made concerning strikes gaining BLC. yes it would help strikes (especially the T1 -and T3 if it wasn't limited to just the T1) significantly, but personally I don't like the idea of putting them on (yet another) non-gunship... GBLCSF would definitely be... yeah... You also make a good point that it's easier to know what the outcome of a pure damage buff might be compared to a range buff since there's never been anything of the sort thus far in GSF, so it would be safer. I just wonder if a 50% increase would make strikes *enough* better than the other options for the specialists not to always be the preferable way to go. I would argue that in Dom even if the bomber scampers for cover at 10k from the sat, the strike wouldn't *have* to chase him 20k there and back. A bomber 10k from a sat isn't offering very much area denial around said sat short of maybe keeping a hyperbeacon alive and thus is sort of taking himself out of the equation in the fight for control. (Though as I'm sure you're thinking, once the strike gets distracted from the bomber the bomber would once again have an opportunity to sneak in so the strike might be only a temporary deterrent). And yeah the increased damage would help against the Ion Rails. I guess I was just thinking when I fly a strike now it's difficult to get in range to even hit an Ion sporting gunship unless he's *highly* distracted, hence why I was thinking if engines can't be buffed as well, a large range boost might help since even if I'm floating there idle in space waiting for the inevitable follow-up slug I can at least pew-pew a couple into the gunship on my way out Anyway thanks for elaborating on your thoughts about my suggestion. I hope I didn't seem to be getting defensive about it. -Oh, and you need fly more on Shadowlands again. Haven't seen you there in a while and it's starting to get boring.

Ah okay good to know. Thanks all (odd as it is I've read every guide I've been able to find about flying but never bothered to look into requisition gain ) It is good to know that my usual preference to not-3-cap if my say has any weight isn't a total waste though since there actually *is* a significant gain of req for newbies if they want to sit and farm defense in a hopeless match. Thanks again for teaching me my GSF fact of the day

Ok, so at the risk of sounding a lot more noobish than I thought I was... What does impact requisition gain then? To be honest I've never tested my assumption, but I have always assumed it was medal count since matches I have a high medal count I usually have 1.5-2k ship and 200-300 fleet req. In contrast in matches where I'm the only experienced pilot on my side against 8 vets/aces and we get triple capped and I'm lucky to get 3 or 4 medals my req. gains tend to be closer to 800 ship and 100 fleet. (I'm like 98% sure that these general numbers are both from using ships with the daily bonus available so I don't believe it's the lack of daily bonus). I would try to replicate this for more exact numbers but it's too late for me to try tonight. Might try to test it for more exact numbers tomorrow once I'm home from work if you don't have a chance to explain this to me before then Verain.

I suppose I will finally post despite the risk of this replying getting lost in the see of off-topicness... I agree there are a several changes there that will play off of each other (largely intended in my suggestion since I believe the strike needs to be a very serious threat at many roles if it is to actually ever be choosen -simply making a ship without a role a slight bit less bad won't make it a compelling choice- they need to make it a stronger than average choice if they are to "fix" it). That being said, I definitely think the combination of such potent weapon buffs combined with the engine pool buff could be slightly excessive, and the numbers of the engine buff (if given alongside those weapon buffs) might need to be tweaked -the goal I was aiming for was to make strikes able to tank a full 2 Ion rails before they were dead in the water (second one depleting/nearly depleting the full engine pool). Ultimately, since the original post asked for a single area to buff the ships in I doubt they will want to do both (in which case the weapons buffs would be the buffs I'd be suggesting). I actually was thinking the changes I suggested might be more useful both modes than a straight weapon damage boost would be (I may be wrong and would love if you would elaborate some on what you meant though). I say this because pretty much every other class would still have much better burst and strikes would not have any burst of their own assuming missiles still have the same problems landing they do now (Of course lack of burst from missiles would not be as problematic if the primary damage boost to strikes was closer to an 100% boost giving them a sort of perma-burst capability -and I'm not categorically opposed to that). By increasing the range substantially not only do strikes gain a longer on-target window in which to put out their non-burst damage, but it would give them some unique abilities in Dom matches too: From how I was envisioning it, by increasing range on HLC to over 10k and most of the rest of the strikes' weapons to the 7k-8k ranges it gives strikes an ability to threaten satellites from long ranges (not gunship long) but it would force any non-gunship, non-strike defenders to break cover from the sat in order to intercept the strike or risk the strike clearing the turrets before getting into range of any defenses. On the flip side, a strike defending a sat would not have to expose himself nearly so much in order to intercept incoming enemies. In addition, extra range should give the strike a little more capability in jousting in either mode by giving them a few extra shots before the scout can enter its own effective range -as it is now if I'm attacking a sat in my scout and there's a lone strike guarding it and he positions himself to joust me my usual best practice to clear the sat quickly is to pop any offensive cooldowns, boost in to under 5k before he gets more than one shot off, and burn down the strike in a single pass and then eliminate the turret defenses. If that strike had a 8k-10k effective range and was pointing my way when I approach, I'm guessing the best plan might be to maybe Barrel Roll in to avoid the joust trying to avoid being hit then try hitting the turrets before the strike can turn on me. At that point I would have to get behind the strike or risk his increased damage+reduced tracking penalty actually being dangerous/deadly). Of all my suggested changes I think it's actually the range that is the most vital (and to have enough of an impact on the strike I feel the range increase must be pretty noticeable). The only problem with only buffing the range and not the tracking penalty (and to a lesser extent the damage) is that the strike would remain the worst choice under a sat without those additional buffs. The problem I see with only buffing damage (assuming we aren't talking a huge buff such as 75% or 100% damage buff), is that it leaves the strike as a slower, less mobile, less bursty, less accurate and less defensible scout with slightly better range and slightly better non-burst (assuming the target will let you shoot at it that long) damage. That being said, I think a pure damage buff *could* work but I think it would *have* to be a very significant buff if it is to make the strike a compelling choice for a tough match all by itself (and from reading this thread I get the impression a very large damage buff worries a lot of people). The range buff would do much the same job but with the added effect of making the strike fulfill it's mid-range "role" a little easier. Either way though, with just an offensive buff Ion Rail would still be a death sentence for strikes and I worry that they could bring enough to the table to be considered competitively even after a pure offensive buff to offset that weakness without some sort of buffer against the energy drain (T3 not included)... I could well be wrong of course and I'm hoping for more feedback on flaws with how this might not work in practice/might not matter even if it does work.

Without going into all of the problems strikes currently face again (Nemarus' “rainbow post” early in this thread does a good job of that), the way I would address these problems as well as the one I point out above that strikes need to be overpowered vs any given class in every way except for that ships' specialization here are my Proposed changes to Strike Fighters: 1- Increase Range of Weapons (chassis buff). 1a – Primary Weapons are in most need of a range buff. I would suggest increasing their range by 75% or perhaps even more across the board (Strike Chassis would provide this buff, not the components themselves) At 75% increase even Ions LLC and RFL would have a sizeable 7k range, Quads nearly 9k range and HLC just over 11k. This not only would allow the Strike to keep targets in its range longer to give it more of a chance to finish a kill but it would also give the strikes some fairly decent threat without totally displacing the other 3 ships' specific specialty roles (Gunships would still have slightly better range -and better burst at that range, bombers would still be the best at area denial despite strikes now being able to threaten a larger area themselves, and scouts would still have the best speed and point-blank range attack capabilities. 1B – Secondary Weapons would not be as important to increase the range on in my opinion but a (slightly) less extreme extension would compliment the strikes' new and improved mid-range style. I would propose increasing the range of any missiles equipped by a strike by perhaps 20%. This would give Clusters 6k range (6.6k if talented for range), while Conc, Ion and EMP missiles would have a range of 7k (7.7k if talented), Torps would have a 12k range and (if talented) Protorps would have a maximum range of 13,800. These two range changes combined would see Strikes able to threaten with all weapons up to the 7k-8k range and many builds would be able to effectively threaten in the 8k-10k ranges as well. 2. Increase Weapon Damage and reduce tracking penalties (Chassis Buff). With the aforementioned (and in my opinion more important) buff to weapon range, both accuracy and damage will inherently get a buff, however (working from the premise that we really need strikes to feel OP'd in some respect if any buff is to actually be effective in making them serious contenders with the more standard ships) I would propose an additional buff to weapon damage as well as a reduction in tracking penalties to the strikes' weapons would still be useful without making the other classes completely obsolete: I would start by suggesting perhaps anything from a 15%-25% increase in damage from any strike weapon source, and maybe a 20% reduction to tracking penalties (ie if the tracking penalty for the weapon is 1% per degree off center it would be .8% on the strike whereas a weapon with a .5% penalty per degree would be reduced to a .4% penalty). I think the idea that people should not want to ignore a strike that is pointing in their direction is a good thing; Scouts can flee, gunships can engage at their maximum range with their burst and bombers can LoS like their life depends on it, making the strike come to them and eat mines in the process, but any type of ship that chooses not to use it's particular strength should pay dearly (and fairly decisively) for doing so, hence a large overall boost to the strike's damage isn't a bad thing the way I see it. While I feel the range buff would be the most beneficial, Nemeras has brought up the good point that strikes also need to have some ability to function under a sat. By buffing the power of weapons some we reduce time to kill without turning the strike into a burst class per say and we also make the few snap shots taken under sats bite a little harder. By reducing the tracking penalty we give any of the strikes' weapons a better chance to hit on the high deflection shots it would have to take while circling under a node. 3. Increase base Power Pool(s) -Engine Power in particular (Chassis Buff) The main purpose of this buff would be to address the strikes' main mobility problems. While I don't feel the strike needs more maneuverability (at least not for the medium-range 'generalist' role), the thing that strikes suffer from more than any other class in my opinion (yes including oddly enough, bombers) is mobility. They can not afford to keep up with a target that chooses to run and can not run fast/far enough to shake any but the most uninterested of pursuers. In addition Ion rail is a total death sentence to a strike (Clarion being the closest thing to an exception to that rule) due to Ion's ability to totally shut down what little mobility the strike has. By increasing the base engine power in particular the strike would have a small buffer against an Ion Rail without making the Ion totally useless against an incoming strike. I Would suggest a 35%-50% increase in the base power pools on Strikes. My thought process in making this suggestion is that while Scouts would still be the masters of speed and on-demand boost ability, Strikes would gain a fairly impressive boost pool they can make use of at key times (such as keeping a target in their sights or running from a pursuer) but with the cost of longer 'down times' between having a full pool compared to scouts (which have booster recharge and S2E available as options to keep their engine pools replenished nearly indefinitely on top of the scouts more efficient engines while the strike would still be forced to take longer 'breaths' every so often). In addition the strike pilot would have the option to conserve their energy pool to give them enough energy to make a narrow escape if they get tagged with an Ion Rail, or risk being crippled by an Ion Rail in order to finish chasing down and finishing their target. This buff would increase both the strikes' survivability against arguably its greatest adversary (the Ion Rail) at the same time as increasing its offensive potential (since it relies so heavily on time-on-target due to lack of reliable burst damage to make kills). The reason I suggested increasing all of the Power Pool*s* is simply because I suspect the only increase that would actually drastically shift the balance of power in the strikes' favour would be the engine boost, so why not boost the weapon pool as well? Besides this, since energy management is one of the more advanced (and often mastered later in a pilots' career) the extra energy cushion for all of the strikes' pools would be beneficial to newbies that are still trying to learn how to fly and aim, much less manage their power settings. I believe the 3 above changes would go a long way to addressing the problems the strikes have and make them worth at least considering for 1 or more of your 5 ship bar to take with you for tough matches. In addition, since most new players take the strike out as their first ship anyway since it's the 'all around backbone-of-the-fleet ship', by buffing weapon range and power pools in strikes I believe it will make the strike a more newbie-friendly ship by providing a cushion to 2 of the things I see constantly: Brand new players shooting their RFL from 20k out (this is something new players are forced to learn early one way or another) and people having trouble managing their power settings (this is a skill often not learned/mastered until a good deal later into a new players' career). The 3 changes above I feel are vital to buff the strike adequately, I have separated a couple of other suggested buffs below that I believe would help flush out the buff and ensure the T2 strike doesn't end up feeling left out to some extent. The reason I separated these changes is simply because they will have a little more impact on non-strike classes and thus might be changes the devs will be less inclined to consider: 4. Increase Missile Dependability [without making Strikes best at only killing strikes] (Component Buff + Chassis Buff; or 2 separate Chassis Buffs) -4a I think that the idea of reducing missile lock-on times (excluding Cluster and [though unobtainable for strikes at present] Interdiction Missile) by perhaps as little as 0.5 seconds each would give the strikes a little more burst potential. Though missiles are arguably more important to a strikes' lethality than to any other class', and buffing them would seem the most logical and immediate improvement that could be made to increase strikes' lethality, I worry that making missiles *too* spam-able may have an unintended consequence of adversely affecting strikes since they never have access to a second missile break and thus I would stop short of asking to make every missile have equal lock on times as the clusters do now. In fact if we reduce missile cooldowns I would suggest also: -4b Lowering strikes' engine maneuver cooldowns to help avoid falling into the possible trap various people have hypothesized of the strike becoming its own hard counter while not gaining noticeably in matchups against any of the other classes. Since Strikes only ever have access to at most 1 missile break, a reduced cooldown (say 20% reduction in cooldown) would give strikes a small additional buffer to enemy missile slinging strikes as well as any other classes making use of quicker-to-lock missiles (assuming the missile lock-on buff were made on a component and not a chassis level) Yes, it would make the already tanky Clarion even tankier if it had access to 8 second powerdives, but if strikes become very lethal mid-range fighters (the ranges most non-cluster missiles are supposed to be effective) it only really shields it extra from other strikes' missiles since a scout would be ill-advised to engage at range rather than flank and attack the Clarion from melee range). For those interested in the numbers such a chassis buff would buff retro thrusters and Koigran Turn to being useable every 16 seconds, barrel roll every 24 seconds, the Clarions' Interdiction Drive would have an only moderately more useful 48 second cooldown and the largely useless power converters would be useable every 5 seconds which honestly wouldn't make them any more tempting an option than they are now. While this Engine Maneuver cooldown reduction might help offset the aforementioned reduction in missile lock on times I'm still not 100% sure it would negate any chance that the strike would become its own worst nightmare, but I do think if the (fairly desperately needed by the T2 in particular) buff to missile dependability is implemented it would need to be implemented alongside something such as an engine cooldown reduction (or straight-up 2nd missile break component being added for all strikes) in order to not hurt the very ships that need it to be buffed the most. Tangential thoughts: Despite this not being a strike change per se, I would be remiss if I did not mention that an alternate way of solving the strikes' general missile problems might be to nerf Distortion Fields' missile break (this coming from a pilot that 'mains' scouts running DF) instead of using my earlier proposal (4a & 4b) to lower missile lock-on times while lowering strikes' engine maneuver cooldowns. There are various ways nerfing DF's Missile break could be done to increase missile dependability across the board, whether it be making the missile 'break' simply force the opponent's lock to take longer instead of actually interrupting it/breaking the missile; Making DF's missile break only work *prior* to the missile being put in the air (Would help some but I'm not sure it would help the strikes enough with their missiles); the distortion evo could have an increased cooldown time by 10-15 seconds more than now (alternatively DF could start with said longer cooldown period and the missile break simply doesnt change this but the extended duration option (left option) would decrease the cooldown to the current amount, etc. Of course I would also not be completely opposed to the idea of removing the break entirely from DF but after reading some of the discussion I will concede that I may not have enough facts to say this is the best option (Though I fly DF scouts I fly gunships much less often -and fairly poorly I might add- so I might be oversimplifying how such a change would impact them, and on the same note I also have not reached the level of the likes of Tomm, Xiao, Sriia, etc to be subjected to constant focusing by multiple opponents so I will not be able to say that removing the missile break would not cause serious problems for those elite pilots that are focused relentlessly in every match. I apologize if this particular item is off-topic but it's hard to talk about strikes' problems without talking about the problems with landing missiles which largely comes back to double-missile breaks. And despite broaching the subject of DF, I think my suggested reduction in lock on time coupled with the reduction in engine powers' cooldown would address the same problem to at least a tolerable degree. Final thoughts: While I do think adding some components could be useful for the strikes (ie retro thrusters for T2, Thermal Torp/Interdiction Missile for the T2, Buff overall to RFL, Feedback Shield for T1, etc) I am making these suggestions Assuming that the devs current preference is to try buffing what we already have rather than adding new components into the mix. In the event components being added to the class were on the table I want to quickly note that my suggested changes to range, damage and tracking for primary weapons should *not* apply in such a proposed state to BLC since I specifically was not taking BLC's already overtuned qualities into account when coming up with those numbers. Some info on me for those interested in what biases I may have from playing GSF in looking at Strike Fighters: I have flown over 1400 matches logging around 220hrs in the GSF cockpit to date between over 12 toons. I started flying the first week early access opened up, flew almost daily up until just about time bombers were released when I had to take a break from SWTOR for RL reasons. I returned to GSF december/January this year and have been flying regularly on a near-nightly basis with at least 1 of my toons if not more. My “Main” class is scout (primarily T1 with some T3 mixed in) but I have flown strikes the 2nd most of any class (over 25% of my total time played and double the amount of time I have flown my third most-flown class. I am somewhere in the unspecific range of “average-ish” pilots and tend to stick on my home server most of the time I fly. TLDR: Strikes need to be better than a specialist ship at every non-specialized role and need to feel OPd as a whole. Musts: -1 Increase primary range a *lot* (75% or more) -chassis buff -2 Increase Secondary range some (20%) -chassis buff -3 Increase weapon damage noticeably (15%-25%) -Chassis Buff -4 Decrease weapon tracking penalties (by maybe 20% of the normal penalty %) -Chassis Buff -5 Increase Power Pools (35%-50%) *esp. important for engine pool. -Chassis Buff Also needed (particularly for the T2 Strike) but with added risks of having knock-on effects on other classes: -6 Reduced Missile Lock-on times for all non cluster or interdiction missiles (reduce times by 0.5 seconds.) -Chassis -or- Component buff. Should only be implemented with: -7 reduced engine maneuver cooldown (reduce by 20%) -Chassis Buff

First off, THANK YOU DEVS for shining some light on this dark corner of the SWTOR universe! I'm late to the party with this post but having only seen this post Monday, I wanted to take a few days to flesh out my own suggestions to (hopefully) make my suggestions as objective and thoughtful as I can. I'm glad I did because after reading through all of the replies the last few days there were some points brought up that my initial ideas did not take into account fully. Now, onto actually answering the question and sharing my suggestions for a way to buff the strikes that I believe will be most beneficial. (warning: wall of text incoming) (Disclaimer: this is *not* a 'nerf/remove Y class rant -imo the 3 'main' classes are fairly well balanced and interesting as they are and should remain so.) I think the trouble with strike fighters can be traced back to the “jack-of-all-trades, master of none” 'role'. But while this is a game of specialists I'm not convinced that Jack could not be a useful contender. -Jack's problem? He definitely is not a master of any trades -in fact he is a mere amateur. To give people a tempting choice over his specializing competition he *must* be “Jack, Adept at all trades, but master of none” rather than “Jack, a guy that casually messes with every trade but doesn't apply himself to any”. To elaborate on this idea I would suggest we must determine whether the other 3 classes of ships are “Jacks of all other trades, Masters of 1” or if they are “Masters of a single trade, jack-of-no-others” (apologies for the lack of eloquence in that description). If we assume that a ship that masters a specific role is also a jack-of-all-other-trades then the strike will *never* have a place unless a new role is somehow shoehorned in (something that would likely require completely rebuilding GSF from the ground up and hence not an option) simply because there would never be a reason to take a ship that was X amount good at roles A, B and C when you could take one that was X good at A and B but 3X good at role C. On the other hand, if we assume that a ship that specializes in a specific role must pay for that specialization by being only mediocre or even poor at any of the roles outside of its specialization then it goes to reason that a “jack-of-all-trades” (aka a generally “median” power at every role ship) must both be less strong than a specialist in the specific specialization, but *stronger* than the specialist at *any* of the other roles. This is where I feel the strikes currently fall short. If this hypothesis fits then the choice becomes do you pick a ship that is X good at roles A and B but 3X good at role C or do you pick a ship that is 2X good at roles A, B and C. At this point there may be a compelling choice to make, not before. I think the reason a lot of people have been claiming the strike is 'almost' where it needs to be say that because it feels almost on par with the specialists in every non-specialized role so it seems to almost 'fit in'. But If the only way a jack-of-all-trades ship could ever hope to be a compelling choice over specialists is if the specialists do indeed have to pay a price for their specialization in every other role. If they do then it goes to reason the strike should not feel like it simply 'fits in' but it should feel superior to the specialists in any non-specialized role and only feel inferior to the specific role that specialist is a master of. So if the above is true then the question becomes does the strike actually meet the requirement of being better at a specialists' non-specialized roles? To test this hypothesis I would offer that if the strike really were an overall “median” (or close to it) ship at every role at present [and hence better than specialists at any role(s) other than their specialization(s)] then if we removed any given class of ship tomorrow, the strike would logically step up to take its place by performing a similar (though not as fine tuned) role. Does this happen? -Gunships are mainly a long-range class designed to take out threats from range before they can close the distance. This can be made to function both offensively (ie taking out defenders or other threats from a safe range) or defensively (by engaging incoming threats to your formation/sat before they can get close enough to endanger them). Okay, so what if gunships were removed tomorrow, What class(es) would take their place? Strikes do have 'medium-range' capabilities enabling them to engage foes at 4-6k ranges, but bombers also have a similar range as far as their standard laser and missile (should they choose to forgo a mine in the secondary spot) fair. In addition, T2 bombers have railgun drones which would most closely match the gunships' abilities, so the strike has no real advantage over the bomber as a gunship 'replacement', and while scouts lack the range of either of the other two classes, their speed and mobility do allow them to close from well outside of range to chewing-your-tail-up close consistently in a very short time so while they would feel even less gunship-like they would be able to fulfill the role the gunship has to a large extent (certainly not enough less than the strike that the strike would actually start appearing in a gunship-less game to fill that void). -Scouts Specialize in speed and mobility as well as close quarters combat making them both effective gunship hunters as well as dogfighters that all other classes must be wary of should a scout slip up close to them. So this time, what if tomorrow scouts were removed entirely? What class(es) would fill the role vacuum they would leave in their wake? Gunships lack the scouts' mobility, though due to the gunship not needing to be anywhere close (read up to 15k) in order to engage an enemy the gunship can still make its presence felt rapidly over a large portion of the map. Of course close combat is not something gunships care for at all (the T3 being something of an exception), but with only strikes and bombers to compete with -neither of which can close the gap quickly and both of which can be stopped in their tracks as they try by an Ion Rail from the T1- the Gunship would not have to become a dogfighter to replace the scouts' role as superiority fighter in most contests. Bombers on the other hand also lack the scouts' ability to put themselves behind a target, but in the bombers' case the targets will usually be coming *to* the bomber lessening the importance of the bomber having high mobility itself. In addition, though the bomber does not do well at turning on an opponent to shoot it down, it still excels in close combat where its attackers must deal with setting off mines or dealing with drones. Strikes would come the closest to 'fitting' the scouts' role as it is now, however the strikes face several problems: While they are arguably more mobile than the other two classes, in order to actually dogfight or otherwise threaten they must use their still very limited engine power fairly regularly making them more vulnerable while engaging targets than the other two. Thus, despite the theoretical advantage strikes have in mobility over bombers and gunships I would argue that in a scout-less game this mobility would not be adequate to persuade anyone that a strike would be a better choice in the scouts' current role as the other two. In addition, even if the strike can close the distance it is tuned to be more of a medium range ship and does very poorly at damaging targets very close to it or while trying to maneuver around obstacles only able to take occasional snap shots since it lacks the gunships' premier snap-shooter BLC and the bombers' no-need-to aim (or be on the tail of the target) mines. Thus while strikes feel more like an unoptimized scout than the other two classes, in a scout-less game I do not see where a strike would fit at present since gunships would be better counter for gunships (and already better against bombers when they have a shot), bombers would be better at close range encounters than strikes (even gunships would be better than strikes simply due to their BLC). -The final class to consider are Bombers whose specialty is to deny a specific area to the enemy. Bombers are the masters of fortification, the premier guardians of nodes and force the opponents to work hard to encroach on the no-fly-zones they build. So what if bombers were removed from the game tomorrow? What class(es) would take their place? This is perhaps an easier question to consider since bombers did not exist for some time in GSF (granted there have been a few changes since then). At the time prior to bombers Scouts were the premier holders of satellites. Their evasion “tankiness” means that they can essentially face-tank major attacks to a degree (RNG gods willing) though often they can simply fly in and out of the sat's fins combined with their passive evasion to make it extremely difficult for an enemy to kill them. In addition T2 scouts have access to BLC making them exceptionally well suited to killing any enemies that decide to try playing ring-around-the-satellite with them. Gunships in contrast are not so good at denying areas if the enemy is already at closer ranges, but with the exceptional range that gunships have they do have adequate ability to keep enemies from entering a specific zone by destroying them when they are still a safe distance away so long as the gunships can destroy the attackers before they can close to short range. Strikes sadly fair very badly in this regard at present. While they are slightly beefier than the other two classes on paper, that extra bit of health and shields really is not worth much in practice since they can not evade hits nearly as well as the other two. On top of that, their weapons are too short of a range to deny the enemy before they become a serious threat to the protected area like the gunship can, (at least not without seriously exposing the strike itself) and they are ineffective at short ranges compared to the other two. We are left with a strike whose only real 'advantage' over the other two possible classes in denying an area is simply raw shield/health which means another laser hit or two before they die (and since strikes can not be as evasive as almost every one of the other 2 classes' ships this 1-2 laser hits doesn't buy them any extra time in a real situation) meaning once again there would be no compelling reason to choose a strike if bombers were completely removed from the game. I think the fact that strikes would not naturally fall into the role of the best “poor man's X class” if X class were removed speaks volumes to the fact that (if we accept the premise that all specialists must pay some price to specialize) the strike as it stands now is not an “average” generalist fighter but rather a Least Common Denominator generalist that is only as good at any given role as a specialist is at a role it was intended to be a poor fit for. If the strike is to be a true “jack of all trades, master of none” and yet still have even a small chance of being a competitive pick compared to any of the 3 specialists, it *must* be considerably better at every role any given specialist is *not* specialized for while not becoming quite as optimized for the specialists' are at their specific specialized role. This brings me to the very good point that Tomm brought up early in this thread: Strikes need to be (as a whole) overpowered. Period. And not just by a little bit. The only checks to this overpowering should be in order to prevent the strike from completely outclassing the specialists at this role (the buffed strikes *should* be encroaching on the specialists' turf, they just should not be allowed to own the rights to that turf). Honestly I would dare say that as long as the strike can not shoot from as far as 15k, can not outrun and outturn a scout (based on chassis alone) and can not poop mines, the strike almost cannot be buffed too much simply because it needs to do *everything* (noticeably) better than every.other.ship. *except* the 1 class that specializes in each of the very specific roles if it is ever to be seriously considered as a competitive choice to a specialist. Due to the length of this post I will be putting my suggested changes in my next post. Thank you for reading:

I agree that this would likely be a good change. It's always felt like the original concept for the strikes was that of a dogfighting superiority fighter whereas the scouts seemed to have originally been intended for more specialized and supportive roles (ie intercepting gunships, providing defense against the originally planned stealth ships, etc). I don't think it would take anything away from the scout's role as an interceptor either since typically an interceptor's primary objective is to get from where they are to within weapons range of the target as fast as possible by prioritizing speed above all else (I would cite examples such as the F-104 Starfighter or the Messerschmitt ME-163 Komet, etc where the craft was built for speed (rate of climb) rather than maneuverability -the presumable reasoning being that the ability to out-turn a foe is rendered moot if you can't even reach it in time) I don't think simply increasing the strikes' turning rate will *completely* fix the class but it would be a very solid step in the right direction.

This is true if it is you or another good and experienced pilot trying to take the satellite (I've flown with/against you before and I know that you are a very strong pilot). The problem with this is that the scenario I see most of the time on my home server (Shadowlands) where the pubs triple cap the team composition is usually something like Pubs: 4-6 good-elite pilots, 2-3 inexperienced but ok pilots and possibly 1-2 neweish pilots This against an imperial team that is more like: Imps: 1-2 good pilots, 4-5 inexperienced or new pilots and 2-3 leeching afkers (yes those same infamous 3) taking up space. With that kind of matchup the 1-2 good pilots on the imp side may get more points if they have to wrest control from you (assuming that the other 3-5 good pub pilots don't see the sat turning and zerg over to defend it in time) *but* the majority of (non afk) newish pilots on the imp side are kind of SOL in this scenario because they lack the skill/experience to effectively take a satellite from even a lone defender by themselves, and they also lack the skill to hold it against the 4-6 reinforcements come to retake it immediately after it turns red. The veteran pilots that may gain more points by retaking the third satellite are also the pilots that are more likely to stick around in GSF since they have already become invested enough in GSF to become as experienced as they are; but the newer pilots that are still learning the game are meanwhile getting *maybe* 500 ship req and 100 fleet req a match -if they are lucky- and the already long grind to upgrading their ship seems enormous. These new pilots are the ones that will get discouraged most by a triple cap and they are the ones GSF needs the most if it's to grow. I'm not saying there is *never* a good reason to triple cap even if you're winning -I've been in matches where despite being ahead the whole game the opponents were fighting hard enough that a single mistake on our side at the wrong moment in the wrong place could cost the match and a third cap (or at least attempt) is a useful tool to take pressure off of the heavily contested sats you're defending- BUT in those matches where the opponents are hard pressed to even take a single satellite or in a match where the score has gotten to the point where the opponents literally have to triple cap to win? Giving the opponents a single satellite they can sit at and farm some requisition via defender medals if they choose to is not only sporting but essential if we don't want to chase off the new pilots that might one day (if they stick around) be the next biggest threat on the server (personally I'd love to have my butt kicked by some new blood now and again). On another note, I suppose TDMs are a bit less cut and dried since if a new pilot can't even hit you there's no reason to drag the fight on. Even so, in those matches that look to end up being 50-5 slaughter-fests the winning team could simply pull back to mid every so often instead of spawn camping so that new pilots get less frustrated. Giving them a little space between their spawn and the fur-ball also gives newer pilots a small opportunity to practice flying before being blown up rather than simply launching into the midst of a kill zone. (I know this can be difficult since if you and your team aren't keeping on eye on where you are, chasing kills in TDMs that are so lopsided tend to pull you to the opponent's spawns anyway -and I'm guilty of not noticing I was dog fighting on top of a spawn on occasion myself-)

As much as I hate BLC sporting scouts, as a (Novadive) scout pilot I think deleting the component outright would definitely cause problems for gunships. One of my very favorite roles to play is that of gunship hunter and I'll say right now that without BLC the gunship has no real teeth if I can close the gap to under 4k~; plain and simple in a 1-vs-1 against a gunship with LLC I can fly circles around him with total impunity. -I'm only an averagish pilot but I dare say without BLC there are only 2 or 3 GS pilots that come to mind that would be the slightest threat once I got to within 4k of them. BLC as it is does an *excellent* job of making sure when I'm hunting Gunships I don't get too cocky -the gunship is still at a decisive disadvantage if I'm in that 4-5k range but he does have a weapon that can -and will- kick me in the teeth if I get too sloppy. For me, that makes engagements with gunships much more exciting/interesting since I'm not essentially immune to them up close -I simply have a strong advantage and if I'm not careful/don't recognize when I need to break off an engagement I will rightfully be made to pay. -In case anyone is worried I'm arguing the Gunships keep BLC as are for selfish reasons I'd like to say for the record I *hate* flying gunships and about the only time a GS is even on my bar is if I'm levelling one or I'm on an alt with a mostly unupgraded T1 scout and I'm worried about running into a gunship wall in TDM. Where BLC gets broken very quickly is when it's mounted to a platform that can place them up any given enemy's butt at will and is also able to keep their target in range for extended periods due to high speed/mobility/boosting ability if need be (looking at you Flashfire/Sting). The way I would consider fixing the BLC scout issue without hurting the gunship's ability to protect itself from attacking scouts would be to simply seperate gunships BLCs from Scout BLCs. Make them 2 seperate guns (I know this might take a little more coding sadly but I think this would also be the best long-term solution). The difference in guns can be explained that gunships have the room on their frames to pack tons of weapons with teeth-kicking potential whereas scouts must sacrifice some firepower due to size constraints and thus they get a miniaturized version: BLCs on gunships stay the same potent *defensive* system they are now ; scouts' BLCs (call them "Scatter Cannons" or Light BLCs or something) would get some slight nerfs to bring them more in line with other guns and make them a good option rather than one of the *only* options. If I were to just toss some numbers out there I'd say possible double their rate of fire but keep their dps the same so that the shots are less bursty (might also slightly increase the power draw) and either remove or *heavily* nerf the armor penetration for these scout blc -I'm picturing scout BLCs as being an anti-scout killer designed to take high deflection shots with some -but not extreme- burst. Since I'm envisioning this scout blc as an anti-scout gun I'd probably keep the shield piercing on them (maybe increase it slightly) since scouts don't really enjoy hull attrition much. eh, anyway that's my $0.02 on it.

My main actually has maxed sensor beacons -ranked up with both left options (I started flying the spearpoint when it first came out and wanted a different option than tensor since at the time -and since I solo que- after the first sprint to the sats in DOM it tended to have the effect of ramming my allies into things more often than giving them advantages when they were engaged since they weren't expecting the change in their flight characteristics). While I think people discount sensor beacons a little more than they deserve, and I still do run them on that ship fairly often I do have to say that they are probably not the strongest option. The main problem I have with the beacons is that they simply have far too long of a cooldown for what they bring to the table to really compete with options like Tensor (which also has a shorter cooldown) and on the T1 scout I find booster recharge and even Targetting Telemetry to be even less dispensable so I just can't justify replacing one of them with the beacons as much as I'd like to make it work). Ultimately, they can be used a variety of ways depending on your needs: probably the most obvious (if you use the accuracy debuff) you can drop one under a friendly satellite to give you and your allies a bit of a buff while fighting off an assault -and this does work to a degree except that the two biggest threats under a sat are mines and battlescouts with BLC and both of those are barely phased by the beacon (mines don't care about accuracy and a couple of them going off will destroy the beacon anyway and the BLC is so stupidly dangerous under sats that even though -10% accuracy technically will have an effect in my experience it's not enough of an impact to actually do any noticeable good for any allied ships being attacked by said BLC scout(s). These two issues, coupled with the fact that ion railgun spam quickly neutralizes the beacons (and with 60second cooldown you won't be putting another down for a quite a while) makes them decent when the sat is being attacked by a ragtag group with less threatening ships, against a more coordinated siege from multiple enemies flying ships that can threaten a sat more effectively they have (from my experience) little effect. A second option for using them to defend satellites is in a situation where you are the lone defender of a remote sat (for example you are holding C while the other 7 are trying to take A & B). By placing the beacon at the edge of your sensor range between your sat and where the enemy will come from, you can buy yourself an extra second or two for allies to arrive after you call out. The reason this isn't very effective is that if your team is so much slower to react than the opponents' it's unlikely that 1-2 seconds will really change the outcome of that encounter and in addition once the incoming foe(s) get to the satellite you are holding you will want to be able to drop a beacon nearby to give you that 10% evasion boost to hopefully buy a few more seconds for help to come and since the beacons have a 60 second cooldown there's a big window between setting one up to watch for incoming and dropping a second one to buff your evasion at the sat. In TDM their usefulness to buff allies is even more dodgy: of course you can plop them down beside friendly gunships as a sort of 'defense' against enemy scouts making runs for them, but since the debuff only works within a radius of 5k if the gunship moves either to get in range of a new target or to dodge an incoming scout (and with only a +10% evasion boost from the beacon he should still be running if a scout is focusing him) the beacon is useless and once again we're stuck with a 60 second cooldown before a new one can be placed. If the T1 or T3 scouts were very adept at peeling attacking scouts this might be an interesting tactic (not convinced it would be effective though) but since neither of those scouts has the peeling power of a T2 the gunship would usually be better off just having a T2 peel for him without any beacons nearby. The other way you could try using them in TDM would be to dive into an enemy formation and drop a beacon before running like hell to give your own gunships a little edge against the enemy formation. The problem with this is that it's a very high risk maneuver in which you run a good possibility of being shot down taking the beacon with you and since you are sacrificing survivability -aka more 'get out of dodge' power (in the case of Booster Recharge or Tensor) or firepower you could use to take some of the formation out before they can retaliate (if not taking Targeting Telemetry) I just feel (in my own completely unscientific view) that the slight possible benefit the beacon might provide doesn't justify the cost of using it over the other abilities to do much the same job. -not to mention even if the first few seconds the enemies ignored the beacon, once it's destroyed you're faced with however much is left of that 60 second cooldown before you can try the same stunt again. (note I only solo que and don't use VOIP so it's possible people coordinating the deployment of the beacons over voice chat *might* find it more useful in such situations). Now I will also mention one other place I find the beacons somewhat useful and that is when used as a sort of countermeasure when being chased: I've found that when I'm on the defensive in my spearpoint the beacons can often times give me the tiny bit of breathing room I need, I rarely just drop them when flying in a straightish line away from danger (although I suppose if the RNG gods looked favorably on this sacrifice they might still cause your pursuer a miss or two providing you with some breathing room), but if I'm making a turn sometimes I'll toss one out (in a similar RNG god sacrificial ritual) and I've found more often than you'd expect the pursuer goes all ADD perhaps thinking it's a repair probe and breaks off for a moment to hunt down the beacon -this only buys a few seconds since the beacons are paper thin but if that few seconds is all you need it can do the trick -worst case the pursuer has to deal with the RNG gods for a few seconds before they are out of the range of the beacon which might still buy you the needed time. The most useful way of using them as a countermeasure when being however I would say is if you are running low on boost power and need a breath, find a nice rock/other terrain to hug making it hard for them to hit you and then release the beacon. Assuming they don't just chase after the beacon, then for a few seconds they not only are having to deal with you trying to LoS them around a rock but the few shots they do make will be harder to land -not to mention it gives you a slight bit more protection from a lurking gunship you might not have seen until he fires his first rail. Of course as soon as you break away to escape once you've caught your breath you can't use that trick for a minute but... Please note, that while I have some success using the beacons as a bit of a distraction/time buying mechanism there are still far better options to get much the same result -ie booster recharge or tensor for the T1 or T3 respectively, and that's not even counting some of the great escape components that other ships types have access to such as the insanely useful interdiction drone (which oddly enough has a similarly long cooldown). Now don't get me wrong; you can still use it for most/all of the above mentioned situations and I do myself (I can't explain it but somehow the spearpoint with beacons is just more fun than the spearpoint with tensor for me) *but* when I am honest with myself, from my experience, there usually are some better options to use for most any situation is all. Afterthought: Now after all my rambling on about what you can use the beacons for even if they aren't the most useful option, I do wonder if the beacons' debuff can stack -ie if 3 scouts all put beacons under the same sat if the ships in their radii would recieve +30% evasion... Even though I run with the 2nd beacon option, due to the cooldown I've not really had many opportunities to see if dropping them both in the same area actually stack or not. Not sure if taking 3 scouts with beacons would make it worth it for the team even then but it would be interesting to know... I wonder if one of the theorycrafters has ever tested this?

Yet another interesting scenario. I think I'd probably opt for my long time favorite Novadive with LC+Pods, BR and Booster recharge. I think I'd make one change though and run a Bypass copilot instead of using one of the more 'normal' copilot abilities on it since the hull attrition would put a lot more pressure on the enemy than normal. That build still won't kill as well as a more offensive build, but I find I usually can survive longer flying that build than I can in most other ships while still being an annoyance to the other team. As for the group pick that's harder since I only really solo que (have no VOIP)... But if I had to choose I'd probably pick to fly the Clarion though I think I might pick a slightly different loadout than I normally do on it: I'm thinking maybe something like PD; RFL; Repair Probe; Shield Projector; and EMP Missile (*maybe* protorps but I feel like siesmic/conc mines will be *much* more significant in such a match than they are now so some EMP support for my teammates might go a long way). I'd probably prefer a T2 scout with BLC and Clusters, a T3 Gunship and a dronelayer with repair probes and railgun drone as my companion ships in such a case.

Bolo pointed out I made a rather obvious (and very silly) mistake in my original response (I've edited that post so it should *crosses fingers* be more accurate now) -Sorry for any confusion I caused. Also, even if my hypothesis were more accurate, the scout being able to avoid a ton of missile locks is largely dependent on power dive's quick cooldown and if he wasn't using maneuvers (and wasn't in a scout) that likely wasn't what you saw in the case you were talking about. I do find it interesting that you were using thermites though since (from a purely anecdotal perspective) I've always had *considerably* more trouble locking a thermite even on centered targets compared to protorps (which should act the same way when locking/firing iirc). This could be explained by me just noticing it on one when the same issues happen on the other, or it could be explained that perhaps I fly my ships with thermite differently than my protorp builds and thus am adding in a variable I don't realize I am. *If* it's not just my perception though, I suppose it's possible perhaps there's something screwy with thermite's locking mechanic and if that's true I'd imagine even modest latency issues could make such issues more noticeable. I do seem to remember reading something about thermite's having some bugs with locking on at one point, but I have no idea if that is still the case (or if it was even a major issue at the time).